Before I begin, let me make it clear that I strongly support publicly owned infrastructure, including railroads, necessary to providing essential services. Removing a profit margin out of the equation of delivering essential services like electricity and health care and in this instance shipping and transportation can focus more resources on the service and less on the profit.

These last few days, Elise Hamner and I have been having a bit of a “debate” over what amounts to, I believe, nuance. As written, I have been attempting to obtain records pertaining to the Coos Bay Rail Link and the Port’s action to declare an emergency thereby bypassing competitive bidding rules for the repair work. Whether you agree that the needs of private company qualify as an emergency or not, we were told by the Port in April that Roseburg Forest Products positively needed the line by June 20 to take advantage of a business “opportunity”. Later we learned that the emergency which, if you can believe reports turns out to be shipping raw wood chips, was not so imminent after all and that whatever opportunity RFP is trying to take advantage of, can now wait until fall.

Hamner informs me that “Documents relating to negotiations with Roseburg Forest Products concerning market/sales strategies are exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.502 (17)”. Now, I don’t really believe I am asking for “market/sales strategies” at all, merely some evidence that the Port has properly vetted this ‘opportunity’. For example, before declaring a state of emergency did the Port confirm there is a serious and qualified buyer on one end and a supplier on the other. Whatever, if any, vetting went on it appears that confirming immediate need with the mystery buyer was not one of them.

Again, in April we are informed that “carloads will begin at 200 per month and eventually grow to 500 a month. The emergency work is to the North Spit. The Port will entertain an opportunity to transload on the other side of the bridge for shippers south of the bridge. Port staff is working with this potential customer to finalize commitments and schedules and is hoping to be open for service at the end of June or early July. Service will be determined by the number of weekly carloads. Initially, the line would serve about 40 carloads per week requiring two trains a week, until it grows to 500 carloads a month.”

Considering the gazillions of public dollars being spent via the Port based upon representations by RFP I requested to see any documents that convinced the staff there was, indeed, an emergency. Hamner has informed me that the public may not see this information as the Port is operating under a NDA (non disclosure agreement). The Port is making some very expensive decisions under a cloak of secrecy and has made some questionable moves in the past. Please read up on the highly touted Weyco Land Option here, here and here that was terminated without explanation. Also read up on the first $5 million of $60 million for channel deepening and widening.

This month we learn that “Roseburg Forest Products is working on a plan to bring either chips or logs from the Midwest to their North Spit site that would be chipped there. If they are able to put this together, it would result in two additional ships per month or approximately 1,000 rail car loads”. It would be nice to learn how many rail cars per month are needed to show a positive return on the taxpayer investment.

According to ORS 192.502 (17) cited by Hamner records are exempted from public scrutiny with “applicants for investment funds, loans or services including, but not limited to, those described in ORS 285A.224 (Business Retention Fund):

a) Personal financial statements.

(b) Financial statements of applicants.

(c) Customer lists.

(d) Information of an applicant pertaining to litigation to which the applicant is a party if the complaint has been filed, or if the complaint has not been filed, if the applicant shows that such litigation is reasonably likely to occur; this exemption does not apply to litigation which has been concluded, and nothing in this paragraph shall limit any right or opportunity granted by discovery or deposition statutes to a party to litigation or potential litigation.

(e) Production, sales and cost data.

(f) Marketing strategy information that relates to applicant’s plan to address specific markets and applicant’s strategy regarding specific competitors.

Now, I haven’t asked for any of this but Hamner informs me that the above “…is the information that the port considered and that is exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.502 (17)”. Again, I believe Hamner and I are arguing nuance so I have requested a copy of the NDA and a copy of RFP’s application for services described in the statute and have allowed that the Port may redact the “applicant’s plan to address specific markets and applicant’s strategy regarding specific competitors”.

A lot of public money has been put aside in addition to the $16.6 million purchase price to allow the Port of Coos Bay to own and repair the Coos Bay Rail Link

ConnectOregon III program (State of Oregon): • $7,999,736
• Available for bridges, tunnels, tracks, other rail work

TIGER II program (US DOT): • $14,527,133 (includes $1,000,000 Port match)
• Available for track only

SAFETEA-LU program (US DOT): • $2,791,686 (includes Port match), for track only

Citizens have every reason and even more, a responsibility to question decisions made involving public resources. The Port, which regards itself as an economic development agency continues to act under cover of darkness, using little code names, Project April, Project Phoenix and Project TK, to name a few, all under the auspices of protecting the “applicant”. Project TK, the Tokuyama Corp was exposed by The Oregonian, (naturally, not reported by The World), to be a polysilicon manufacturing plant that uses a highly toxic and contaminating process. The public need to be informed about these economic development schemes.

Lastly, SCDC simply will not respond to repeated requests from multiple people to provide its financial information. As a non-profit organization receiving public funds it must, by law, provide this information. One can only ask, what is SCDC hiding?